[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Some thoughts about stable kernel development
Willy Tarreau <> writes:

> - maintaining two trees is always more work than only one tree for the
> same person, whatever the changes. This is obviously true, otherwise
> none of us would ask for someone else to maintain the stable tree :-)
> I believe this reason was given by both Alan and Marcelo at different
> times.

Sure. However, with this scenario, the amount of additional work would be
low, as the time-consuming things are done once for both trees.

> - I think it was Linus who said that clueless people will only use distro's
> kernels, therefore are not affected by how the kernel is developped. And
> for other people like us, the "stable" kernel will never contain enough
> features and we will have to patch anyway.

Not sure about it - while I'm using 2.6.0test on my notebook (my personal
news/mail server + less important things), I also use official kernels
on some machines and patched trees on other ones.
What I _don't_ use is distribution kernel - not because it's bad, but
rather because i don't know it good enough.

> - someone else (alan ?) said that even most obvious fixes can break some
> setups, so there are not many "obviously riskless" patches around, and
> if there's a really critical one which needs to go mainstream very
> quickly,
> then the maintainer can always release a new version in a hurry and delay
> -preX pending features for the next release.

-post, yes. But it only solves this one problem.
Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.188 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site